The setbacks faced by the Naxalbari movement have raised questions about its political, ideological and organisational foundations. Debates over these issues have existed since the movement's inception, but the present crisis has brought them into renewed focus. After six decades of advances and reversals, the movement faces the task of reviewing its experience and assessing its future direction.
A left-wing students' organisation organised a seminar some time back to discuss these questions. The booklet "Naxalbari Is Immortal", published by the organilation, contains four papers presented at the seminar. They examine the movement's political line, the question of state power, changing national and international conditions, and the concept of the comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie.
In the first paper, “Naxalbari: The Concept of State Power”, Vivek discusses the movement's rejection of parliamentary politics and its emphasis on armed revolution. He argues that Naxalbari placed the capture of political power at the centre of its programme rather than limiting its objectives to land redistribution. The development of a people's army was considered essential to this strategy.
Vivek traces the evolution of armed squads into the People's Guerrilla Army associated with the Maoist party and discusses the establishment of village-level political institutions in areas of Dandakaranya and Jharkhand. He compares the Naxalbari experience with developments in Chile, Indonesia and Nepal, arguing that the weakening or dissolution of revolutionary armed organisations contributed to the reversal of revolutionary projects. He particularly examines the dismantling of the People's Liberation Army in Nepal and its implications for the political process there.
Vivek maintains that the movement's experience reinforces the importance it attaches to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and the relationship between political objectives and organisational capacity. He argues that a movement seeking to capture state power must assess its capacity to challenge the state's institutions.
In “Revolutionary Path Shown by Naxalbari”, Ravi Narla examines the movement's political and military strategy. He discusses the Maoist characterisation of India and China as semi-feudal and semi-colonial societies and traces the movement's development from the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) to the Communist Party of India (Maoist).
Narla describes the transition from armed squads to guerrilla formations and the establishment of political institutions in parts of Dandakaranya, including the Janatana Sarkar. He notes that the development of such structures in India differed from the experience of the Chinese Revolution and examines the challenges involved in expanding political organisation across wider territories.
He also discusses caste, Adivasi resistance, national self-determination and women's liberation within the movement's political framework. Narla argues that caste oppression must be considered alongside class relations and that the movement's activities should not be confined to Adivasi areas. He highlights the need to examine its relationship with peasant movements in the plains and political activity in urban areas.
Narla stresses that the movement's setbacks should prompt a critical assessment of its decisions rather than the wholesale rejection of its theoretical framework. He questions whether making the establishment of liberated areas an immediate objective was feasible given the movement's organisational strength and the prevailing international conditions. He also raises questions about the flexibility of its military strategy and argues that greater attention could have been given to sustained mass struggles and the development of wider resistance movements.
Narla supports the concept of New Democratic Revolution as a framework for India, citing landlessness, agricultural employment and the dependence of rural households on agriculture as important features of Indian society. He also examines how surveillance technologies, including satellites and drones, have changed the conditions under which revolutionary organisations operate.
The third paper, “National and International Situation for Revolution”, by N. Venugopal examines the conditions that may contribute to revolutionary change. Drawing on Marxist theory and Lenin's analysis, he distinguishes between objective conditions, such as economic crisis and social inequality, and subjective factors, including political consciousness, organisation and leadership.
Venugopal identifies three elements of a revolutionary situation: divisions within the ruling class, a deterioration in people's living conditions, and increased political participation by the masses through protests, strikes and other forms of collective action. He argues that social discontent alone does not necessarily produce fundamental change; political organisation and the capacity to translate discontent into collective action also matter.
He maintains that the Naxalbari movement's work extended beyond armed struggle to include political, literary, cultural and ideological activities. He criticises approaches that assess revolutionary practice solely in military terms, overlooking the role of other forms of political mobilisation.
Venugopal discusses the decline of movements that emerged internationally during the 1960s, alongside the growth of corporate influence, changes in welfare policies, restrictions on dissent and the weakening of workers' protections. At the same time, he points to protests over land, wages, unemployment, inflation, discrimination and social inequality in different countries.
In India, he identifies working conditions, the agrarian crisis, displacement of tribal communities, discrimination against minorities, restrictions affecting Kashmir and the Northeast, rising education costs and the privatisation of education as sources of discontent. He argues that these conditions could create possibilities for political mobilisation, although their development into organised movements would depend on other factors.
Venugopal maintains that changes in global capitalism have not eliminated the inequalities that informed the Naxalbari movement's analysis. He considers Lenin's understanding of imperialism and Mao's approach to revolution in semi-colonial societies relevant to contemporary debates. He also emphasises the need to learn from the movement's experience and examine the relationship between theory and practice.
The fourth paper, "Comprador Bureaucrat Bourgeoisie", by Murali (Ajith), examines the Maoist understanding of the relationship between Indian capital, the state and foreign interests. Drawing on Mao Zedong's "Analysis of Classes in Chinese Society", Ajith discusses the distinction between the comprador bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie.
He refers to the works of Suniti Kumar Ghosh and Nagi Reddy, which examine the development of large Indian businesses during colonial rule and their relationship with foreign capital after independence. Ajith argues that liberalisation and globalisation strengthened the position of large business groups and influenced debates within the Maoist movement.
He also examines the relationship between caste hierarchies and economic power. According to Ajith, caste continues to influence business ownership and the distribution of economic opportunities. He argues that an analysis of Indian capitalism must consider the relationship between caste, landholding and corporate power. He further discusses how sections of the landed classes adapted to economic changes by entering commercial activities and retaining influence in rural areas.
The four papers examine the political framework, history and strategic questions associated with Naxalbari. Their discussions of state power, mass mobilisation, social inequality and organisational practice provide material for assessing the movement's experience. The contributions by Venugopal and Narla, in particular, address the need to relate political theory to changing social conditions.
However, the papers give limited attention to some questions concerning the movement's own practices, including the implementation of agrarian revolution, the relationship between mass mobilisation and armed activity, and the development of organisational structures across different regions. The differences between the historical conditions in China and India also require closer examination, particularly regarding the feasibility of establishing and sustaining base areas.
Narla raises some questions about the timing and feasibility of establishing liberated areas, but a more detailed assessment of the movement's political and military decisions would help explain its setbacks. The relationship between its objectives, mass participation and organisational capacity also deserves further consideration.
The booklet argues that the social and political questions addressed by Naxalbari remain relevant despite changes in Indian society and the global economy. Assessing this argument requires examining both the continuing relevance of its analysis and the limitations of its practice. A critical review of these aspects would help clarify which elements of its experience remain applicable to present conditions and which require reconsideration.
---
*Freelance journalist
Comments